Kikapu wrote:The upper floors were intact, until the moment of the "internal" callapse. Then, the upper floors kept hitting each floor within this "cage" with tremendous force and speed on the way down at "almost" the speed of Gravity, and finally pulverizing upon hitting the ground. It was as if, the whole collape was happening within a large tube, and that is the reason, why the upper floors did not "tip" over. Don't forget, Gravity works at 90° (vertical), and not sideways.!!
Kikapu,
do the calculation and you will see what you say does not make sense. Each floor has its own inertia, and according to the pancake theory the collapsing top floors need to accelerate the bottom floors.According to calculations for this to happen it would require at least 40s. Collapse at the free rate of gravity does not make sense unless all steal beams are cut all at once.
The 30 top floors did not "pulverize" as they were hitting the floors below, they suddently disappeared in mid air:
We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block
turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not
actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
As far as for the other buildings collapsing around the Twin Towers, could have easily caused by "ground shake", by the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have been in few Earthquakes in San Francisco, including the one in 1989, which destroyed concreate highways, part of the Bay Bridge, and dozens of other buidings. For all we know, the foundations on WTC 7
could have shifted enough, to cause the collape.
Except WTC7 no other building collapsed, even those nearer to the twin towers. They were badly damaged by falling debris, and yet they did not collapse.
WTC7 did not collapse during the artificial "earthquake" (2nd on the Richter scale according to a nearby station), but hours later when everything had settled. If a building like that can collapse 10 hours after a minor earthquake, this raises serious questions about building safety and should have been seriously investigated. It was not. why?
If you really want to believe that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives, you need to ask yourself this one very important question, which I deliberatly emphasized in my original post.
Why did the South Tower, that was hit 2nd, collapesed first. Surely, had it been planned to destroy the buildings with explosives, it would have been most logical to bring down the North Tower down first, since it was the 1st tower to be hit by the planes. This would have made more sense and more believable.
If they wanted to make it believable they should not have brought down WTC7. They cannot hide that:
Three buildings collapse symmetrically onto their own footprint
30 structurally intact stories pulverize in midair after the initiation of the collapse sequence.
Molten metal flowing and in pools for weeks after the event
Horizontal plumes and pluffs of smoke right before the collapse
Early drop of North Tower Antenna
Ejection of Steal beams and debris hundreeds of feet away from the tower
Eyewitnesses report flashes and explosions.